T Nation

WMDs Found in Iraq

Got this in my email yesterday. Could this be a hoax?
I checked the links but still don’t know what to make of it. Has anyone ever heard of this general?
Subject: Shocking New Revelation

This is new information everyone should know . . . not the first “new” discovery of MWD related materials if you have military connections.

You will find verification links at the end of this shocking article.
This has been flying under the radar. Read the MSNBC article and check the truthorfiction.Com site. The TorF version is shown below. This event is factual. I have an increased respect for President Bush. He has taken the heat of being called a liar and a war monger for 5 years while he kept his silence to protect the people of the world. This is truly a display of selfless honor.

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. Mission hauls uranium from Iraq .

The opening paragraph is as follows:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. Operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq . They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released t he story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush’s war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,
The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.

Closing the book on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger . The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

During his trip to Niger , Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger , Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in ‘expanding commercial relations’ for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki’s remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger .

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

Outraged by Bush’s insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-Ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger . The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki’s claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister’s statements.

It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger , it would undermine President Bush’s credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.

Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister’s statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was ‘unequivocally wrong.’ Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.

Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage – no friend of the Bush administration – who leaked Plame’s identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam’s uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don’t count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam’s uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, ‘Bush lied,’ we should tell them to, ‘Have the yellowcake and eat it too.’

This story was verified, if you want to check it for yourself, click on the links below.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

Has anyone ever heard of this general?

That yellowcake was known to exist by the weapons inspectors so that makes it somehow “ok”.

“Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.”

Looks like pretty old news.

This sounds important.

Is it?

Saddam Hussein had enough to make one nuke.

Does that sound important?

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed, as well as weapons programs in place, that were prepared to build WMD’s at a moments notice, but since the components were not put together, by golly gee, they don’t count as WMD’s.

It was important that none of this counts if you wanted Bush out of office.

Thanks for your input on this. I hadn’t heard of it until I got this email but my argument all along had been that we knew he had various wmds at one time because he had used them and there was no record of them
being destroyed and he wouldn’t agree to let
the inspectors have free reign…so, in my mind at least, invasion was justified. But then, I’m just a country boy—don’t claim to be an intellectual. That’s why I asked for some opinions on this.

And was this only enough to make one nuke?
I don’t know much about that sort of thing.

And what about Valarie Plame? It was my understanding that Who’s Who In Americas
listed her as an employee of the CIA. Didn’t check it out but if that’s true why the big deal about Scotter Libby?

He had the yellow cake, and he did want more. But he may not have had the capability to produce the bomb. I know his first attempt was bombed by Israel.

The story of WMD’s was complicated by the fact that Saddam did not want anyone to think he was weak, so he was telling everyone that he had WMD’s, while giving another story to the UN. All the while he was at least preparing his labs for the day he expected all the flack to die down, and all sanctions to go away.

Valarie Plame was no real “spy” in the full sense of the word, and was in no way a “secret” one. At least not in Washington.

Her Husband’s testimony on the whole subject is quite suspect, as it looks as if he did not do any real investigation.

I still cannot see how Libby could get into trouble when a Democrat actually admitted to being the source of the leak.

But apparently when the reporter, already knowing about Plame, made a comment about Plame to Libby, and his response to the question, which was surprise the he knew, was the reporters verification.

What I remember is that everyone was cleared for the “outing” of Plame. That’s right, the investigation said that no crime was ever committed by anyone revealing her name.

Libby got in trouble for lying to investigators DURING the investigation. It had nothing to do with any CIA anything.

The media did and continues to portray it as if he got convicted for outing her and somehow putting her in harms way, which is completely untrue. He, like everyone else in that case, never did anything wrong to Plame.

“In United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.[7]”

For some reason if you are president and commit perjury, you become a hero among the left, but if you are a white house official connected to bush, it shows corruption in the administration.

[quote]The Mage wrote:

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed, [/quote]

Who suppressed the information?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The Mage wrote:

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed,

Who suppressed the information? [/quote]

Apparently, a majority republican government has no power against the EVIL liberal media that somehow suppressed all of the WMD info.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The Mage wrote:

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed,

Who suppressed the information? [/quote]

CONSPIRACY!!! YAY! I said it first, I win.

The news is out there, just not front page. And yes there is a bias:

The Report was still posted on the FBI website last time I checked and I have the whole thing as well the abridged version in PDF’s I made as soon as it was released because I know Barone will be written off by some.

10/8/04 US News and World Report:
The Duelfer report’s case for war in Iraq
By Michael Barone

[quote]“U.S. ‘Almost All Wrong’ on Weapons” read the headline on the October 7 Washington Post. “Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims” read the subhead. But these headlines conceal the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein.

First of all, Saddam retained the capability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. On chemical weapons, “Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from under sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.” On nuclear weapons, “Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. . . . Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field.” Moreover, Duelfer concluded that Saddam in his missile program was developing missiles that exceeded the range limits set in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687.

Duelfer also reported that Saddam asked subordinates how long it would take to develop chemical weapons once sanctions ended. One Iraqi chemical weapons expert said it would require only a few days to develop mustard gas. Former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said that Iraq could have had a WMD capacity within two years after the end of sanctions.

If the weapons inspectors had been given more time to conduct inspections, as John Kerry has on occasion advocated, we now know they would not have found any WMDs. Nor does it seem possible that they would have uncovered Saddam’s attempts to maintain WMD capability. There would have been heavy pressure then from France, Russia, and China?whose companies were given kickbacks and windfall profits from the Saddam-administered U.N. Oil for Food program, Duelfer reports?to disband U.S. military forces in the Middle East and to end sanctions. And once sanctions were gone, there would have been nothing to stop Saddam from developing WMDs.

In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11?but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.

One more thing needs to be said. There was, despite the headlines and charges to the contrary, no “intelligence failure” here. How were U.S. intelligence agencies?or those of other serious countries, who reached the same conclusion?to learn that Saddam was not currently actively developing WMDs? How could they do that when even high officials in Saddam’s government did not know whether such programs were ongoing or not? This was a secretive regime, not given to public announcements of its weapons development, not subject to a Freedom of Information Act. Even if we had had human intelligence sources at the top levels of the Saddam regime who assured us WMD programs were not ongoing, how could we have prudently relied on them?

Intelligence is an inexact business. It deals with things that cannot be known for sure. In this case, it dealt with something that even an ideal intelligence agency could not determine for certain. Our intelligence agencies and those of other countries that concluded that Saddam had WMDs turned out to have erred, but they erred on the proper side, on the side of pessimism, as they had to?because the man had a record of developing WMDs and using them. And he had a record, we now know thanks to Charles Duelfer, of maintaining the capability of using WMDs again. The world and the United States are safer with Saddam in prison.[/quote]

I agreed when we went in, I agreed in 04 and I still agree though I will concede that not everything was always handled optimally (to say the least) as if everything ever is in any war.

I really wonder what the peaceniks would have said if something traceable to Baghdad ended up here killing a bunch of our citizens. The cry would have then gone out calling for his head for not protecting us.

The idea of Bush (with the allegiance of many democrats including Biden) fumbling into this war because he’s a hicky idiot is asinine and ridiculous. He gave me plenty to bitch loudly about, but this wasn’t one of em.

This paragraph is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
This revisionist, apologist hack just advocated putting the lives of American troops in jeopardy for a hypothetical.
The entire justification for the war was “conclusive” evidence of WMDs. Even this moron admits there wasn’t conclusive evidence.
I would say the definition of imprudent is putting the lives of American citizens directly in harm’s way for a “maybe.”

The war was based on a lie from the start, then the goal posts started to get moved - “but… but… Sadam is a really bad guy!” Great. A bad guy who poses less of a risk to international security than many other “bad guys.”
This war is completely indefensible at every level.

[quote]Demiajax wrote:

In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11?but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.

This paragraph is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
This revisionist, apologist hack just advocated putting the lives of American troops in jeopardy for a hypothetical.
The entire justification for the war was “conclusive” evidence of WMDs. Even this moron admits there wasn’t conclusive evidence.
I would say the definition of imprudent is putting the lives of American citizens directly in harm’s way for a “maybe.”

The war was based on a lie from the start, then the goal posts started to get moved - “but… but… Sadam is a really bad guy!” Great. A bad guy who poses less of a risk to international security than many other “bad guys.”
This war is completely indefensible at every level.
[/quote]

Maybe you should read it again as well as the relevant sections of the report if this hack isn’t good enough.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Saddam Hussein had enough to make one nuke.

Does that sound important?

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed, as well as weapons programs in place, that were prepared to build WMD’s at a moments notice, but since the components were not put together, by golly gee, they don’t count as WMD’s.

It was important that none of this counts if you wanted Bush out of office.[/quote]

Actually he could have produced plutonium with a breeder reactor.

[quote]Demiajax wrote:

In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11?but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.

This paragraph is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
This revisionist, apologist hack just advocated putting the lives of American troops in jeopardy for a hypothetical.
The entire justification for the war was “conclusive” evidence of WMDs. Even this moron admits there wasn’t conclusive evidence.
I would say the definition of imprudent is putting the lives of American citizens directly in harm’s way for a “maybe.”

The war was based on a lie from the start, then the goal posts started to get moved - “but… but… Sadam is a really bad guy!” Great. A bad guy who poses less of a risk to international security than many other “bad guys.”
This war is completely indefensible at every level.
[/quote]

Actually you are giving the revisionist view of the justification for war. If you don’t believe that listen to Bush’s address to the UN. Bush essentially said that the threat posed by WMD was so great that the risk of Saddam using them was too great to ignore and he wasn’t going to wait until after Sadaam had used WMD on the US.

9/11 changed the way that America was going to deal with threats, so that instead of waiting until after a bunch of Americans had died and then reacting we were instead going to be proactive and not wait until our people had died.

Also if you bothered to learn about the findings of the Iraq study group you would know that Sadaams own people who he had put in charge of developing WMD were giving him overly optimistic progress reports because they didn’t want to let Sadaam down.

So even Sadaam thought he had WMD because that is what his people were telling him.

Sifu is exactly right. We did not invade Iraq because we thought Hussein was behind 911. That was the revisionist spin spouted by the Dems and the media to discredit Bush who, like the Republicans at large, have the PR skillz of a carrot.

We did it because after witnessing 911 Bush rightly thought it wise not to sit around waiting for the next attack regardless of where it might come from. All the relevant intelligence at the time including that of our allies was sufficient to convince not only Bush, but lots of Democrats, Hillary and Biden included, that the threat was credible.

Hussein was stealing mass sums of money from the Oil For Food program and had his WMD resources stashed until he could get Hans Blix and those useless UN inspectors out his hair which was on the brink of happening despite his brazen defiance of their own resolutions.

We now know for certain that he will never again murder another human being, cause international upheaval or be in a position to threaten us in any way. War is messy and shitty, just like the world and it’s politics, but I am not sorry we went in there and would support it if we had it to do over under the same circumstances. It’s pitiful watching our public buy the very smart propaganda put forth by the Jihadists convincing them that they would like us if we minded our own business.

Vietnam has taught our enemies that if they can harness our media we will do their job for them.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The Mage wrote:

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed,

Who suppressed the information? [/quote]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The news is out there, just not front page. And yes there is a bias:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/[/quote]

Wait, you think a media bias for Obama = suppression of information about WMDs? Is it only the media that’s suppressing this information?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The Mage wrote:

But this is old news, along with other WMD’s that have been found, but suppressed,

Who suppressed the information?

The Mage wrote:
The news is out there, just not front page. And yes there is a bias:

Wait, you think a media bias for Obama = suppression of information about WMDs? Is it only the media that’s suppressing this information? [/quote]

Unless I missed something, you are the first person to mention Obama. Why don’t you just type “conspiracy” in all caps and move on? It would make reading your posts a shorter waist of time.